Trump-Fox-Feedback-Loop.png

Melissa Joskow / Media Matters

Research/Study Research/Study

Fox touted the impoundment memo from Trump's OMB. The memo was just rescinded after widespread pushback.

Written by Zachary Pleat

Published

Barely two days after the Trump administration issued a memo ordering a freeze on federal grants and loans — which was temporarily put on hold by a federal judge before it officially went into effect — the administration issued another memo today seemingly rescinding the funding freeze. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt further confused the issue hours later, stating, “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo.” Leavitt’s comments reportedly caused a different federal judge to issue a restraining order against this funding freeze in a lawsuit brought by over 20 state attorneys general.

Experts argued that the funding freeze, which caused chaos and risked damage to innumerable critical programs across the country, amounted to an unconstitutional impoundment of congressionally authorized spending, and it had fingerprints from Project 2025 all over it. That didn’t stop Fox News and Fox Business personalities from vociferously defending the likely illegal power grab throughout Tuesday and into Wednesday.

Select a section

  • Trump’s attempt to freeze federal spending was likely an unconstitutional power grab

    • Georgetown Law professor Josh Chafetz: “There is simply no plausible argument that the president has the constitutional authority to refuse to spend appropriated funds because he doesn’t like how the money is being spent. The legality of policy impoundments is just not a close question.” [Bluesky, 1/28/25]
    • University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Bagenstos: “The delay OMB has ordered specifically contradicts the Impoundment Control Act.” Bagenstos was addressing suggestions that “a mere delay in spending appropriated funds is legal,” adding, “But that's not really true.” In a thread on Bluesky, he laid out how the Impoundment Control Act specifically prohibits the Trump OMB’s actions. He also noted that the memo “doesn’t come close to meeting” requirements under the ICA for legal spending pauses. In a statement to HuffPost, Bagenstos said: “The Trump Administration is ostentatiously flouting Congress’s power of the purse, which is one of the most basic principles of our republic.” [Bluesky, 1/28/25, 1/28/25; HuffPost, 1/27/25]
    • Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck: The memo is “in direct conflict with Congress’s constitutional power of the purse, and in even more flagrant violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA).” Vladeck also explained that the Trump administration failed to follow the ICA’s legal pathway to impound any of the spending. [One First, 1/27/25]
    • Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern: “Trump is attempting to unilaterally freeze trillions of dollars in federal spending that’s been duly appropriated by Congress. This is completely insane and illegal.” [Bluesky, 1/27/25]
    • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “More lawlessness and chaos in America as Donald Trump’s Administration blatantly disobeys the law by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.” Schumer added: “Congress approved these investments and they are not optional; they are the law.” [NBC News, 1/28/25]
    • Top Democratic appropriators Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wrote in a letter to the Trump White House that the actions violate the law. Specifically, they wrote “to urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold the law and the Constitution and ensure all federal resources are delivered in accordance with the law.” [CNN, 1/27/25]
    • Center for American Progress senior director for federal budget policy Bobby Kogan said Trump’s order “illegally pauses” multiple low-income assistance programs. In a statement to HuffPost, Kogan said “pausing like a third of government funding ― which is illegal and massive.” And on Bluesky, Kogan said news outlets should be framing the order as “Trump illegally stops funding for housing and home heating assistance during the middle of winter.” [Twitter/X, 1/27/25; HuffPost, 1/27/25; Bluesky, 1/28/25]
    • Georgetown University Law professor David Super explained in-depth how the Trump administration memo violates the ICA. Super wrote that “this entire order is unlawful,” noting it includes “many ambiguities” that seem “certain to cause chaos and harm vulnerable people.” [Balkinization, 1/28/25]

  • Trump’s impoundment scheme would harm millions of Americans

    • Center for American Progress senior director of economic policy Brendan Duke: “One way to think about this is that it’s akin to a unilateral partial government shutdown. Federal employees still get paid but billions and billions of dollars of government functions are on pause without any congressional sign off.” [Twitter/X, 1/28/25]
    • Federal spending makes up about 30% of state budgets, and the freeze would hurt state and local governments in funding infrastructure, disaster recovery, and other priorities. Maryland Matters reported that a federal funding freeze could harm its large biotech sector and risked “research that directly impacts patient health and quality of life.” In Texas, officials worried that the freeze would affect efforts to “help tackle crime, housing unaffordability and homelessness” — The Texas Tribune reported that the state is relying on nearly $100 billion in federal spending “to help cover the cost of state health care services, public schools, higher education institutions and highway spending among other spending priorities over the next two years.” [The Associated Press, 1/28/25; Maryland Matters, 1/28/25; The Texas Tribune, 1/28/25]
    • The spending freeze would devastate American universities and their research. AP reported that Gallaudet University researchers “were told to stop work on grant-funded projects” during the initial freeze, and included a statement from the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities that a freeze would “sideline world-leading American scientists who are working toward cures for cancer, developing breakthroughs in AI and quantum computing, driving progress in advanced manufacturing, and supporting American farmers.” Inside Higher Ed reported that had the freeze not been stayed by a judge, “critical STEM research and student success initiatives were among the thousands of programs whose funding would have been paused until at least Feb. 10.” Inside Higher Ed also reported that the freeze may strip funding from universities that predominately enroll Black students. [The Associated Press, 1/28/25; Inside Higher Ed, 1/28/25]
    • The Center for American Progress detailed how Trump’s spending freeze applied to numerous programs that serve low-income Americans. CAP reported that “internal guidance from OMB to the agencies leaked Tuesday morning named thousands of programs that agencies were to review, including” Head Start, low-income rental assistance, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Title I education grants for low-income area schools, the National School Lunch Program, child care funding for low-income families, and the Community Health Center Program, which helps fund over 1,300 community health centers nationwide. [Center for American Progress, 1/28/25]
    • Medicaid funding was shut down nationwide. KFF Health News reported, “By midmorning Tuesday, state officials around the country reported they had been shut out of a critical online portal that allows states to access federal Medicaid funding.” According to the article, Medicaid covers more than 70 million, or about 1 in 5 Americans, and the program “pays for most long-term care for Americans and for about 40% of all U.S. births.” The Office of Management and Budget later clarified that Medicaid was not supposed to be included in the spending freeze, even though its initial order did not specifically exempt the program. [KFF Health News, 1/28/25]

  • Fox personalities supported and defended Trump’s actions to freeze federal spending

    • Fox News host Laura Ingraham dismissed opposition to Trump’s impoundment as “media sob stories, Democrat sob stories. … They went nuts.” She continued: “Meals on Wheels, no. No one is cutting Meals on Wheels. That's a complete media — that's the typical media sob story, is it not?” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 1/28/25]
    • Fox guest Josh Holmes: “I can’t believe that’s controversial.” Holmes called the objection to Trump’s impoundment scheme an “absurdity,” adding: “The idea that we’ve hit this constitutional crisis because an incoming administration wants to take a look at how taxpayers' money is spent in all these various agencies, I can't believe that's controversial. I can't believe this is a discussion that anyone outside of the beltway would for a moment be concerned about.” He continued: “What he's done is reveal how angry people get when you just simply shut off the spigot. And that's frankly what Americans have been asking for for quite some time.” [Fox News, Special Report, 1/28/25]
    • Fox contributor Guy Benson dismissed the opposition to Trump’s impoundment order as “hyperventilation from some of the Democrats.” He added, “No, this is not going to stop benefits.” [Fox News, Special Report, 1/28/25]
    • On his radio show, Fox host Sean Hannity agreed with a Republican senator’s defense of Trump’s impoundment scheme. After Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said, “This is about a temporary pause to make sure we're faithful stewards of taxpayer money,” Hannity replied, “I mean, you can’t say it any better.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 1/28/25]
    • Hannity also accused Democrats of “demagoguing it and lying about it.” Hannity claimed: “And by the way, no, it's not going to hurt the elderly. It's not going to hurt services that are usually performed. None of that is true.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 1/28/25]
    • Fox host Jeanine Pirro defended Trump’s likely illegal impoundment while mocking “Democrat and media hysteria over the order,” and Fox anchor Sandra Smith said, “The media seems to be fearmongering a little bit here.” After introducing a segment on Trump’s impoundment scheme by mocking “Democrat and media hysteria” about the order’s impact on average Americans, Pirro repeated the administration’s claims that “the pause is not across-the-board, it’s to eliminate programs that the president promised he would eliminate, that he was elected on, and that is DEI programs. And it’s pausing money only from 5 o’clock today until February 10 so that they can take a look and decide what they're going to do.” Smith added: “This is an administration following through on its promises and that they understand that we've got to cut back, and we've got to start somewhere, and they've got to get aggressive. Because you can't just do this bit by bit in small batches.” [Fox News, The Five, 1/28/25]
    • Fox anchor Trace Gallagher: Democrats are working to “gin up the fear” about “Trump freezing some federal funding.” [Fox News, Fox News @ Night, 1/28/25]
    • Fox host Jesse Watters: “Trump’s trying to pump the brakes on spending and Democrats are going nuts.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 1/28/25]
    • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell: This was “just a pause” but “there has been a top notch Democrat freak out” over it. [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 1/28/25]
    • Fox Business host Elizabeth MacDonald: “The media has been misleading America on President Trump freezing federal aid grants and loans.” MacDonald further complained that “the media is not focusing on that taxpayer abuse” of supposed fraudulent overpayments. [Fox Business, The Evening Edit, 1/28/25]
    • Fox Business host Taylor Riggs dismissed a “funny headline” about cities worried that Trump’s impoundment order would affect their budgets. Riggs continued: “Basically what I like about this, everything is up for review. Everything is on the chopping block. It doesn't mean everything is permanent. It means we are pausing to evaluate our options, and then, when we get to see what policies are being spent money on that we like and what policies have a ton of money that we're spending on that we don't like, then we get to review. But I like the pause because it stops the bleeding, allows us to reevaluate, and then we can figure out how to move forward.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 1/28/25]
    • Fox contributor Jason Chaffetz endorsed Trump’s impoundment: “Because Congress appropriated, doesn't mean you have to actually spend it, and that's what Donald Trump understands.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 1/28/25]
    • Fox host Todd Piro: Those on the left “are hyperventilating, as they often times do.” Piro added: “Trump's just saying, I want to look at all of these things. One, see if there's fraud. Two, if these priorities are necessary for our country, and if they're not, we're taking the money.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 1/29/25]
    • Fox Business host Brian Brenberg defended Trump’s illegal impoundment: “What President Trump is doing here is what you would see in any private sector business all the time.” Brenberg added: “Of course, if you don't want the government to spend less money, you freaked out about that. And that's what we saw.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/29/25]